ACTA so transparent, the text still has to be leaked

At this point, one gets the sense that Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) negotiators are just yanking our collective chains with their talk of "transparency." After releasing a single version of the ACTA draft text back in April, the negotiations descended into their customary and unnecessary secrecy once more. After the most recent round of negotiations in Lucerne, the governments involved didn't even bother to release the new text. And when the European Commission briefed European members of parliament, the meeting was secret—so Pirate MEP Christian Engström left.

It's hard to say why the negotiators still insist on such secrecy, especially when draft texts of the treaty keep leaking anyway. Another one appeared today (PDF), courtesy of someone in the European Parliament, and it incorporates all the most recent changes from the Lucerne round.

So—progress, of a sort, but it wasn't enough to win over 90 academics and advocates who gathered in Lucerne to discuss the ACTA. In late June, this group issued a statement that said, "We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators."

It continued, "Recognizing that the terms of the agreement are under further closed-door negotiation over a text we do not have access to, a fair reading of the April 2010 draft leads to our conclusion that ACTA is hostile to the public interest in at least seven critical areas of global public policy: fundamental rights and freedoms; internet governance; access to medicines; scope and nature of intellectual property law; international trade; international law and institutions; and democratic process."

Despite the secrecy, the leaks and the public scrutiny have already resulted in positive changes; the suggestion that ISPs adopt a "three strikes and you're out" approach to copyright infringement allegations appears to be gone for good, for instance.

Negotiations resume soon in Washington, DC, where the EU plans to draw a line in the sand over the inclusion of its geographic marks (like "Parmiggiano-Reggiano" and "Champagne"). Without US recognition of these marks, De Gucht said that the EU gains little from ACTA.

"We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators."

I think they mean it threatens the interests of their pay masters. I suppose lobbyists are public.

Eh? They threated the freedoms to which people like me (but maybe not you, since you don't seem take advantage of them) and others enjoy. The problem here is that most businesses rely on how broken intellectual property laws are, and would love to see them extended to other countries. There's not really all that many companies who would like to stand up to it because of all the FUD that all their designs would be stolen and counterfeited.

Negotiations resume soon in Washington, DC, where the EU plans to draw a line in the sand over the inclusion of its geographic marks (like "Parmiggiano-Reggiano" and "Champagne"). Without US recognition of these marks, De Gucht said that the EU gains little from ACTA.

Non-content US businesses will not put up with that shit. If the US does agree to it, that looks like a good avenue of attack.

And I still don't see how all these changes won't require changing existing US law, invalidating the objective the USTR had of not needing Senate approval.

"We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators."

I think they mean it threatens the interests of their pay masters. I suppose lobbyists are public.

Eh? They threated the freedoms to which people like me (but maybe not you, since you don't seem take advantage of them) and others enjoy. The problem here is that most businesses rely on how broken intellectual property laws are, and would love to see them extended to other countries. There's not really all that many companies who would like to stand up to it because of all the FUD that all their designs would be stolen and counterfeited.

/ramble

Read the sentences carefully :"We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.""I think they mean it threatens the interests of their pay masters. I suppose lobbyists are public."

If you link "We" in the first sentence as "They" on my second sentence, it will read "They find that terms of publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests...". I've used the term "Paymaster" to imply that RIAA and MPAA funds the policy making politicians as part of their lobbying effort to push ACTA and that "public interest" they are referring to is in fact of their "paymaster" the RIAA and MPAA. Thus implying that the politicians in this process are corrupt and far too favorable to those who pay them.

Unless you are implying ACTA is advocating freedom, which by all accounts many believe it doesn't, I don't see how your post and mine is too different.

"We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators."

I think they mean it threatens the interests of their pay masters. I suppose lobbyists are public.

Eh? They threated the freedoms to which people like me (but maybe not you, since you don't seem take advantage of them) and others enjoy. The problem here is that most businesses rely on how broken intellectual property laws are, and would love to see them extended to other countries. There's not really all that many companies who would like to stand up to it because of all the FUD that all their designs would be stolen and counterfeited.

/ramble

Read the sentences carefully :"We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators.""I think they mean it threatens the interests of their pay masters. I suppose lobbyists are public."

If you link "We" in the first sentence as "They" on my second sentence, it will read "They find that terms of publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests...". I've used the term "Paymaster" to imply that RIAA and MPAA funds the policy making politicians as part of their lobbying effort to push ACTA and that "public interest" they are referring to is in fact of their "paymaster" the RIAA and MPAA. Thus implying that the politicians in this process are corrupt and far too favorable to those who pay them.

Unless you are implying ACTA is advocating freedom, which by all accounts many believe it doesn't, I don't see how your post and mine is too different.

The problem is you seem to have misunderstood the context and intent of the original quote.

The ACTA negotiators made disclaimers about how the ACTA will not harm consumers and will not affect personal liberty. In the quote, the academics are stating the negotiator's disclaimers are bogus, and the ACTA will, in fact, cause harm to general public interest, including for every point the ACTA negotiators tried to disclaim otherwise. If you follow the link to their statement, they clearly state they consider ACTA a threat to public interests.

So the quoted group are not lobbyists supporting the ACTA, quite the opposite.

The problem is you seem to have misunderstood the context and intent of the original quote.

The ACTA negotiators made disclaimers about how the ACTA will not harm consumers and will not affect personal liberty. In the quote, the academics are stating the negotiator's disclaimers are bogus, and the ACTA will, in fact, cause harm to general public interest, including for every point the ACTA negotiators tried to disclaim otherwise. If you follow the link to their statement, they clearly state they consider ACTA a threat to public interests.

So the quoted group are not lobbyists supporting the ACTA, quite the opposite.

Right, looks like I got the parties mixed up. I was implying the same thing you were. I thought it was the negotiator focus group that stated "We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators." because media industry consistently claim whatever copyright change they are making is for the benefit of the "public".

However it's not on to make personal attack even if that wasn't the case.

Maran Garand wrote:

They threated the freedoms to which people like me (but maybe not you, since you don't seem take advantage of them) and others enjoy.

It represents corporations interests, in lieu of consumers. It's a method of milking the people as much as possible, and giving even more powers to the law and police states that we are living in. It's scary stuff.

"(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."-Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."-United States Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert

"(The President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."-Constitution of the United States of America, Article II, Section 2, Clause 2

"This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. No agreement with a foreign nation can confer power on the Congress, or on any other branch of Government, which is free from the restraints of the Constitution."-United States Supreme Court, Reid v. Covert

Except this particular treaty is not about the US. Sure, it tries to go above and beyond what is already law, but it is mostly about exporting the same US restrictions to other countries.

We should all be boycotting big content.ACTA is like making war on the world of consumers.Band together asnd stop feeding these pigs money.give them nothing and find their stuff used somewheres.I hate the RIAA & MPAA

We should all be boycotting big content.ACTA is like making war on the world of consumers.Band together asnd stop feeding these pigs money.give them nothing and find their stuff used somewheres.I hate the RIAA & MPAA

This is the way to go! I will keep watching movies and such but not illegally this is what should hurt them the most.

What can we expect from people who only care about their own pockets? Big corporations are destroying the world and people are sitting just watching what is happening but they don't know what to do; we need someone that could really represent the public(maybe the guy from the old spice commercials?). ACTA is going to drive down profits for all the companies that are trying to pass it but whatever no one wants to listen to us...

Negotiations resume soon in Washington, DC, where the EU plans to draw a line in the sand over the inclusion of its geographic marks (like "Parmiggiano-Reggiano" and "Champagne"). Without US recognition of these marks, De Gucht said that the EU gains little from ACTA.

Non-content US businesses will not put up with that shit.

They should. Contrary to copyrights, trademarks are for the benefit of the customer. Fraud should not be allowed.

Just to provide a note of balance, this isn't just about big business, there is also an element of anti-globalism in this work too.

Protected geographical marks are important to small businesses and cooperatives across Europe where they help to ensure that authentic products continue to be produced locally, supporting producers and businesses and thus regional economies.

People tend to forget that products like Champagne, Parmagiano etc., while sometimes expensive at the consumer end, support huge numbers of people in the regions where they are produced. Keeping traditions of local production going is an important aspect a region's culture and allowing it to be undermined by globalised corporations is madness.

The problem is you seem to have misunderstood the context and intent of the original quote.

The ACTA negotiators made disclaimers about how the ACTA will not harm consumers and will not affect personal liberty. In the quote, the academics are stating the negotiator's disclaimers are bogus, and the ACTA will, in fact, cause harm to general public interest, including for every point the ACTA negotiators tried to disclaim otherwise. If you follow the link to their statement, they clearly state they consider ACTA a threat to public interests.

So the quoted group are not lobbyists supporting the ACTA, quite the opposite.

Right, looks like I got the parties mixed up. I was implying the same thing you were. I thought it was the negotiator focus group that stated "We find that the terms of the publicly released draft of ACTA threaten numerous public interests, including every concern specifically disclaimed by negotiators." because media industry consistently claim whatever copyright change they are making is for the benefit of the "public".

However it's not on to make personal attack even if that wasn't the case.

xWidget wrote:

They threated the freedoms to which people like me (but maybe not you, since you don't seem take advantage of them) and others enjoy.

Fixed the attribution of the second quote, since it was from xWidget, not me.

I also find personal attacks undesirable. Since your response showed me that you had misunderstood the context of the quote, I pointed it out, so you would understand why he was disagreeing with what you said. It was not my intention to excuse anything you would consider a personal attack, nor do I consider pointing out your mistake a personal attack.

When things like this are kept secret, it's almost always an indication that there's something to be secretive about, something that someone won't like because they shouldn't like it, because it's not right.

"Political rights do not originate in parliaments; they are, rather, forced upon parliaments from without. And even their enactment into law has for a long time been no guarantee of their security. Just as the employers always try to nullify every concession they had made to labor as soon as opportunity offered, as soon as any signs of weakness were observable in the workers' organizations, so governments also are always inclined to restrict or to abrogate completely rights and freedoms that have been achieved if they imagine that the people will put up no resistance. Even in those countries where such things as freedom of the press, right of assembly, right of combination, and the like have long existed, governments are constantly trying to restrict those rights or to reinterpret them by juridical hair-splitting. Political rights do not exist because they have been legally set down on a piece of paper, but only when they have become the ingrown habit of a people, and when any attempt to impair them will meet with the violent resistance of the populace . Where this is not the case, there is no help in any parliamentary Opposition or any Platonic appeals to the constitution."

– Rudolf Rocker, Anarcho-Syndicalism: Theory & Practice, 1947

----

As long as the only opposition is a few geeks ranting on misc messageboards, nothing will be done to stop this.Our rulers have learnt their lesson: as long as you take liberty away in small portions, nobody will fight for it...